bill by modification in either direction, either by investing the expert with greater sanctity still than is done in the bill, as by making him a permanent official, which would probably be open to criticism, or whether we can allow the system of experts proposed, and have other experts called besides these to test their conclusions,or in what other way the system proposed by the act may be modified-or, perhaps, in the ingenuity of other members of the Association another system may be devised I do not know; but it seems to me that this case will justify our departure from precedent and the appointment of a special committee as suggested by Judge McPherson, who may take up the whole subject and give us either an alternative recommendation or a negative recommendation. I should be very sorry if the result was to determine upon a negative recommendation, and to say that we must still bear the evils that we know. But if that must be their conclusion, we will have to submit to it. I think that if we have a new committee who shall be appointed, not necessarily from members opposed to the present plan, but from members who have given it intelligent thought, and are ready to give the evils which we suffer intelligent consideration, it will be an innovation which the case amply justifies. I, therefore, am disposed to support the motion of Judge McPherson.

THE PRESIDENT: The question is on the substitution of Judge McPherson's amendment; is that substitution seconded?

JUDGE MCPHERSON, Philadelphia: There is no motion of substitution; there was an amendment suggested by Judge Simonton which is practically incorporated in the resolution. THE PRESIDENT: The question then is on the amend

ment.

JUDGE MCPHERSON, Philadelphia: The amendment was accepted. May I simply for a moment re-state the question? The motion before the Association, as I understand it, is that a committee be appointed, the number to be determined either by the Association or the President, and to be appointed by the President not necessarily from opponents to the measure-I was careful to avoid that statement-but from

persons not now members of the Law Reform Committee, in order that it may be selected from minds not committed to a particular view of the case-that is all-that such a committee be appointed to consider the subject, and to report at the next meeting. The motion does not exactly mean that they shall report a bill.

THE PRESIDENT: How many shall the committee consist of?

JUDGE MCPHERSON, Philadelphia: Five or seven.

JUDGE SLAGLE, Allegheny: There was a motion to recommit the matter to the present committee with instructions to report at our next meeting. I second that motion, because I think this bill can be made satisfactory to every person. I do not think this is a matter that makes an unbending rule. I only have had time to glance over it while I have been in this room, but it seems to me simply to mean that certain experts shall be selected to testify in any particular case or on any particular subject which may be presented by petition by one of the parties, and the experts are then to be selected under the control of the court. It looks to me as a very important matter. It seems to me that we can get persons that are disinterested, that are not partisans of either side, and that certainly will be more reliable than the ordinary experts. I, therefore, am in favor of recommitting it to the present committee who has had it under consideration. They have looked at it, I have no doubt, on all sides, yet members of this Association can now make suggestions to the committee of what we think ought to be adopted, and if they choose to adopt the suggestions well and good, and then we will consider the question again next year.

MR. HENSEL, Lancaster: Certainly we must assume, in fairness to this committee, that they have done their very best. They now ask that another bill be prepared, and it seems to me scarcely courteous to them to recommit this subject. They have given it a good deal of thought, and, as has been said by the opponents of the measure, they have produced a painstaking report; and we may in fairness assume

that they have done their best. I therefore move to lay Mr. Torrey's motion now before the house on the table.

Duly seconded, and carried.

THE PRESIDENT: The question is now on the original motion. Of how many shall the committee consist?

JUDGE MCPHERSON, Philadelphia: Five, to be appointed by the chair.

THE PRESIDENT: The question now before the house is that a committee of five be appointed by the chair, composed of persons not members of the present Law Reform Committee, to draft a measure upon this subject, if in their opinion any bill on the subject ought to be reported and passed, and to submit such measure in connection with the present bill to the Association at its meeting next year. Is the Association ready for the question?

The question being called for upon the motion as stated by the chair, it was agreed to.

The special committee appointed on this measure are as follows:

RICHARD L. ASHHURST, Philadelphia, Chairman, RICHARD C. DALE, Philadelphia,

J. W. F. WHITE, Allegheny,

W. I. SCHAFFER, Delaware,

LOUIS RICHARDS, Berks.

MR. HENSEL, Lancaster: Before we adjourn I move that the chair appoint a committee of seven, to be known as the Nominating Committee, for the purpose of reporting such officers of this Association as fall within the province. of that committee.

THE PRESIDENT: This committee will hold a session at 10 o'clock to-night, at the Hotel Sterling, in order to receive suggestions from any member on the subject of officers.

On motion adjourned until 3 o'clock p. m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

July 6, 1899.

The meeting was called to order at 3 o'clock p. m., President Woodward in the Chair.

THE PRESIDENT: Gentlemen, your attention is now requested to an address on the subject of Fidelity to the Court and Client in Criminal Cases, by the Hon. James T. Mitchell, of Philadelphia.

FIDELITY TO THE COURT AND CLIENT IN CRIMINAL CASES.

HON. JAMES T. MITCHELL.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

My subject to-day was to some extent commanded to me by the committee which did me the honor to invite me here, though I do not wish to disclaim responsibility for either the subject or the manner of its treatment. But if I should treat it somewhat didactically, I wish the audience to be good enough to remember that it is now nearly eight and twenty years since I have done any other talking in public than laying down the law to juries. Therefore, if I seem a little bit to be treating this audience as a jury, to be charged as to the law, I beg you will attribute it to long habit.

No thoughtful lawyer, observant of the signs of the times, can fail to notice the gigantic strides of lawlessness within the memory of the present generation. I do not now speak of crimes with criminal intent, of the criminal classes from which no community is ever wholly free, nor of the waves of crime in special forms which from time to time sweep over them. My concern to-day is with what without intentional solecism I will call crimes without criminal intent, lawlessness by the law abiding, violations of law and right and justice, done in the cause of right and in the name of justice. And the special interest of the subject to you and to me lies in the fact that lawlessness in this aspect has its